From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,38159b1b5557a2e7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-28 04:28:34 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!d9c68f36!not-for-mail Message-ID: <4017AAEF.1020304@noplace.com> From: Marin David Condic User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (OEM-HPQ-PRS1C03) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Standard Ada Preprocessor References: <400BDB7C.40100@noplace.com> <400D2150.6000705@noplace.com> <400E72F9.8060501@noplace.com> <100upo7ln5e3k59@corp.supernews.com> <400FC8E8.2040100@noplace.com> <4011127C.4030801@noplace.com> <101377e54car5cc@corp.supernews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:28:33 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.23.172 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net 1075292913 209.165.23.172 (Wed, 28 Jan 2004 04:28:33 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 04:28:33 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4991 Date: 2004-01-28T12:28:33+00:00 List-Id: The hiding of system/target/compiler dependent stuff in a body is all well and good. (I'm not convinced that it can *always* be hidden in a body and even if it can, that's another layer of indirection that sometimes starts posing unnecessary overhead for applications that might care about that.) Sure, isolate it in a body. Write a monograph about how to hide compiler, target, OS, and other platform dependencies in a body. I'll try to follow it. Now give me a way to select *which* body I want via some standard compiler mechanism that I can count on having available. Shell scripts, makefiles or other build process mechanisms are simply pushing *that* problem off in another layer of indirection - and its a non-portable, uncertain layer at that. MDC Robert A Duff wrote: > > I'm rather skeptical of talk about "Ada philosophy". I agree with you > and MDC that the issue is a very practical one. It's all well and good > to recommend encapsulating system dependencies in package bodies and so > forth. But you still need some mechanism to select which body to use in > each case. I don't see any advantage to using make-file hackery for > that, over using #ifdef's. > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat. Its the FAT that makes you look fat." -- Al Bundy ======================================================================